Army Guy Posted July 7, 2016 Author Report Posted July 7, 2016 The "right" choice is not to be a bottomless money pit purchasing the latest and greatest iPhone for the military. I agree too many large purchase decisions become political footballs and that needs to change; no more photos in mockups of F-35s. The government needs to commit to long term spending plan, and the military needs to stick to that plan. No whining that they want bigger and better toys, and will daddy please open the wallet. The military should be able to say that the mission the government sets is not possible given the funding, and then it is up to the government to decide if they can find more money or scale back or forgo the mission. Canadian content rules are a completely different issue, or are you suggesting we disband the Canadian Forces and outsource to the Americans (or Chinese)? What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If you want manufactured offshore, then why do you expect to be employed? This is another issue or perception with our military that most Canadians have, that it is armed with the latest greatest I phone as you called it. That is not the case, Case in point look at the age of our CF-18's, our Frigates, our destroyers, look at the condition of our Subs, look at the condition of the Army's truck fleet, the majority of which are sitting in open fields because they are not useable... On top of all that, our latest adventure into Afghanistan has torn up most of the new equipment we have, it's been used hard and put away wet....after all it was in a war zone. And while it is still being used, it is becoming more costly to maintain, and operate. I get it there are finite resources available to operate each and every dept within our federal government. That being said is DND is often the first target when it comes to cut backs , and the last dept to receive additional funding....the commitment you speak of must be a two way street. clawing back additional funding has to stop...And on DND side of the house how can one maintain a long term plan when it changes every year... If Canadians really knew the true state of our military, it would be shocking...Not only the condition of its equipment, it's infra structure, training, etc etc they would be demanding something be done....But most Canadians think our military is a well oiled machine, with top of the line equipment....That is not so.... The other perception a lot of Canadians have is " whining that they want bigger and better toys, and will daddy please open the wallet." the attitude that the military is just a whinny kid never satisfied with what is offered.... Todays Military is not whinning , but begging like a starved child for something to be done to slow down the erosion of capabilities and the fact soon our military will become to expensive to fix. The warning signs have been made very clear in numerous reports not only done by the Canadian military but also our allies and other defensive partners.... The military should be able to say that the mission the government sets is not possible given the funding, and then it is up to the government to decide if they can find more money or scale back or forgo the mission. The military has done this one several occasions, such as Bosnia, and Afghanistan, advised the government that in it's current condition those missions could not be done, or would require additional resources.....But DND does what it is told, and while the missions get accomplished regardless it is due to the members of DND, and their sacrifices.....Addition resources where given to DND, however all the expenses occurred in Afghan came out of those same resources, the fact that DND ran in the red for the first 3 years of the Afghan conflict is proof of that, forcing DND to cancel purchase projects or delay them, cancel training, infra structure improvements....the list is pretty long..... Yes there was new equipment purchased for DND during the Afghan mission, on things like new replacements for Iltis jeeps, new M777 towed arty pieces, desert cam uniforms, new Battle tanks, even chinnook helos ......But all those purchases were done after enough soldiers had died, and the public was made aware and forced the government into doing so... Is that responsible government, is that what Canadians call having our soldiers backs....So many other issues with equipment and supplies went un noticed during that conflict, issues that attributed to soldiers deaths.... And if that is where we are in our country right now, where it is OK to under equip our military, to the point were we place untold extra risk to our soldiers then that is fine....but we as a nation should be telling that to the countless men and women who want to sign up ...it should be on our recruiting posters....But we don't do that because we are good with that lie.... I have mentioned in countless threads here that if there is no will to equip our military properly then our government must be forced from sending them any where....that is above our capabilities..... Canadian content rules are a completely different issue, or are you suggesting we disband the Canadian Forces and outsource to the Americans (or Chinese)? What is good for the goose, is good for the gander. If you want manufactured offshore, then why do you expect to be employed? Most of the Canadian content rules are designed as pork barrel exercise's, to make it look like we are spending Dollars to create work for Canadians ,keeping Canadian dollars in Canada great idea, great concept if it is done when it is reasonable..... There are many equipment needs that are outside Canada's defense industry expertise, or the quality or costs is not in the same category of it's competitors. you have mentioned that funding resources are not an endless pit....and yet it is reasonable for you to pay twice the price for equipment that is not of the same quality as other imports. Why is quality so important , it saves lives.. on the battle field....why is price so important , because DND receives funding only when their is a blue moon, why not make the best use of it and get the equipment we need and want.... If you want to feed funding into our industries then do so through other means, If we don not want to grow our defense industries because their is no will, then stop using the excuse "well it provides Canadian jobs" and yet the average Canadian does not practice "buy Canadian" they buy what ever is the cheapest.... An example of Canadian content....leaf springs for the MLVW, made and assembled in the US, then disassembled in the US , and shipped to Canada, to be reassembled in Quebec so they could claim it was assembled in Canada...Why they were not made in Canada I do not know, there were hundrds of parts like this one example completed this way....a waste of tax dollars, all to be able to put a sticker on the veh assembled in Canada.... Offsets are nothing more than a bribe from a company to a country to be able to sell it's product....look at the F-35 and what offsets Canada is expecting, a 9 bil dollar project and we expect 9 bil dollars in offsets..... If Canadians want to disband their Armed forces then fine....want to outsource our defense fine, I'm sure in your mind it would be much cheaper, gone will be all those pork barrel contracts for our industries, add to the unemployment rate 65,000 people, not a big deal, gone will be all those towns and cities that depend on military dollars to survive, also gone is our ability to have a say on our defense, foreign policy let alone our sovereignty....Gone will be our soldiers having to pay for purchases with their blood....Gone will be a lot of things.... You sound like some union boss back in the 60's .....shut up, be glad you even have a job, stop whining or go some place else....forget the fact that most Military members do what we do not because of the pay check, but because they care about the nation, and our security, because they are proud to serve all Canadians .....so much so they are willing to give their lives up for it.....and this is the message you want them to here.....suck it up butter cup....Like it was them that owed you something, that they are not good enough to be your equal.....Military people don't want you to worship them, call them hero's, or even shake there hand, they just want to be treated the same way our employer treats you. the just want to be equal..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
waldo Posted July 7, 2016 Report Posted July 7, 2016 I get it there are finite resources available to operate each and every dept within our federal government. .....Military people don't want you to worship them, call them hero's, or even shake there hand, they just want to be treated the same way our employer treats you. the just want to be equal..... I don't recognize that you do... get it. Several times in this thread, 2 of the more prolific MLW members in these military procurement related threads have offered related comment on that fiscal reality; your described 'finite resources'. One of those 2 members is actually grounded in reality; the other just wants his toys for his preferred military branches. In any case, I may have missed it, but I've not read you challenge either of those 2 members on their statements suggesting the Canadian Army should be significantly downsized; in one case, relegated to supporting a "strong reserve force". Not quite the equal you're speaking to, yes? . Quote
?Impact Posted July 7, 2016 Report Posted July 7, 2016 forget the fact that most Military members do what we do not because of the pay check, but because they care about the nation, and our security, because they are proud to serve all Canadians ..... Yes, the military members are better than the rest of us so we serfs should just shut up and comply because all we care about is a pay cheque. Us plebs couldn't understand caring about the nation, we are just not cut from the right cloth. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 7, 2016 Author Report Posted July 7, 2016 Maybe you have missed it Waldo, or choose to ignore it, as not worthy of your attention, and I respect that, it is after all your choice. I have also stated that I do not believe that this period of Fiscal restraint is factual or 100 % accurate, as I have stated in response to several of your posts. The fact remains that this government or the last one take your choice, have always been able to find a way to fund their dreams or aspirations....30 bil in new liberal spending is one example and I'm sure it would not take you long to find a similar or greater number that harper spent....when one can scrap 30 bil or more up , there is a good indication there is no fiscal restraints.... When I referred to Finite resources, there is of course if one was to maintain budgetary restraint to not over spend what one collects in revenue....but in most governments that is not always the case is it....going into the red is the "in" thing to do....and when one wants to look good for re election and provide a balance budget , well there is always cuts to be made within the our military budget.. always the in thing to do....Or one could redirect funding from other depts, as also suggested.... I have chosen not to directly challenge the other TWO prolific members on this forum, as I was already heavily involved with Smallc and Impacts posts...I've already had these conversations with derek, along time ago, and we both agreed to disagree on our stances.....That and the fact I respect dereks opinions, and in many cases agree with them.....just not in this case....and if in your eyes that diminishes my stance because of I have not challenged derek or others so be it, until then I stand by my posts. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted July 7, 2016 Author Report Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) Yes, the military members are better than the rest of us so we serfs should just shut up and comply because all we care about is a pay cheque. Us plebs couldn't understand caring about the nation, we are just not cut from the right cloth That is not what I said or implied, if that's is your take on the post re read it..... Edited July 7, 2016 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
dre Posted July 7, 2016 Report Posted July 7, 2016 Id be fine with doubling military spending if it was done along side the establishment of a defensive military doctrine. I have no beef with the military but I see politicians with aspirations to have an interventionist foreign policy to be the biggest threat to our national security and safety and as long as that's going on I have no choice but to come down on the side of starving them of the resources they need to pursue that policy. I know that's not fair to our troops but I just don't know what else to do. My own governments stupidity is the biggest threat to my own liberty and security so I'm not going to be chomping at the bit to grow their security apparatus. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
?Impact Posted July 7, 2016 Report Posted July 7, 2016 That is not what I said or implied, if that's is your take on the post re read it..... I'm just saying how it comes across. Your disclaimers do not register as sincere when tacked onto a long list. You have stated before that the public should stay out military matters, yet you use a long laundry list of problems to justify asking for more money. That is why I said previously that the military should be able to tell the government they cannot participate in a mission. It is the military commanders that fail when they send soldiers into battle without the proper uniforms, training and equipment. Yes, there are lots of problems that need to be addressed but writing a blank cheque is not the solution. We need to set a level of funding that can sustain a level of readiness including a limit to deployments, beyond that base missions need to be addressed individually. Remember that the nation is not here to prop up a military, our economy is a vital part of the nation. Impoverishing our nation to support a military is against the security of the nation. Finding the right balance is key. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 7, 2016 Author Report Posted July 7, 2016 I don't disagree with everything you have said, But the ball is in the politicians court and always will be, they know regardless of the state of our military, They will go and do their bidding regardless of cost once given the order to do so ....it is also a fault of the military to take on any challenge and try to over come it....regardless of cost it is a pride thing....Failure is not an option.. Where I do disagree is that Canada's military should not be restricted to a defensive role only, history has shown us plenty of times that sometimes diplomacy is just not enough and military force needs to be applied, examples of WWI, WWII, plus others. Perhaps new laws or policies can remedy this some how or restrict military force. Some conflicts have made the general public very leery about governments use of force, conflicts such as Iraq, or Afghanistan are some examples, and have changed the publics opinion on any use of the military....as been shown here many times it is only a matter of will or so i'm told, to make these changes.....instead of cutting off our arm dispite our hands perhaps looking at other measures that restrict governments use of force... Canada entire security apparatus is in shambles, it needs to be fixed not reduced so it is incapable of not doing it's job....How that is done, what it is going to look like, I do not know it is beyond my pay grade or expertise, what my experience does tell me is reductions is not the way to go, if we can not do the job now with the numbers we have now, how could reductions be the answer.....I seen first hand what doing more with less does, it reduces capabilities, it reduces much needed training, it takes much longer to accomplish tasks, tasks are rushed and not done to a professional level , because their is always 10 more tasks behind it....no light at the end of the tunnel so to speak....The pace that is set burns personal out all that much faster, which leads to higher release rates, medical issues, mental issues....it also does the same thing to equipment..... there are thousands of options available to the government and DND, in order to save money all they have to do is look.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted July 7, 2016 Author Report Posted July 7, 2016 I'm just saying how it comes across. Your disclaimers do not register as sincere when tacked onto a long list. You have stated before that the public should stay out military matters, yet you use a long laundry list of problems to justify asking for more money. That is why I said previously that the military should be able to tell the government they cannot participate in a mission. It is the military commanders that fail when they send soldiers into battle without the proper uniforms, training and equipment. Yes, there are lots of problems that need to be addressed but writing a blank cheque is not the solution. We need to set a level of funding that can sustain a level of readiness including a limit to deployments, beyond that base missions need to be addressed individually. Remember that the nation is not here to prop up a military, our economy is a vital part of the nation. Impoverishing our nation to support a military is against the security of the nation. Finding the right balance is key. I want to clarify something, Military commanders follow orders, they do not have the power to dictate anything to the government, they have advised on many occasions that our forces are not suitable or capable of various missions....Such as Bosnia and Afghanistan...In the end the government took that advisement and sent them anyways.....The government knew exactly what our military shortfalls where and sent them anyways..... What needs to be done is recognize there is a problem first,and finding out to what extant the problem is.... and to find a solution to all that....and all the thousand s of problems and issues that go with that.....nobody is asking for a blank check....but don't put the check book away, because decades of neglect have eroded a lot, and nobody is say it is going to be cheap.....and the Military used as a source of income to fund other governmental programs.....that steady source of funding who talk off has been taken away or used for something else.... Finding a balance is key, but we are not talking about funding millions of troops, or growing a military that fits in the top 5....we are talking about marginal increases in size and maintaining our current capabilities maybe even recovering a few lost ones.....nobody is talking about aircraft carriers, or nuclear attack subs....but rather small stuff like new trucks....new Aircraft, new ships in the future.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
-1=e^ipi Posted July 7, 2016 Report Posted July 7, 2016 Maybe we should just abolish the military, and use the savings to pay off the debt. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 7, 2016 Author Report Posted July 7, 2016 I wonder how Canadians will react if we are forced by our allies to comply with our defensive agreements. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted July 7, 2016 Report Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) I wonder how Canadians will react if we are forced by our allies to comply with our defensive agreements. How would they force us to comply? Are they going to force France, Italy, Germany, and Spain to, as well? Edited July 7, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Big Guy Posted July 8, 2016 Report Posted July 8, 2016 Throw $billions at our military and you will have a large, proud and strong military force looking for a war. I prefer a proud, small and weak one looking to avoid conflicts. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
dre Posted July 8, 2016 Report Posted July 8, 2016 Throw $billions at our military and you will have a large, proud and strong military force looking for a war. I prefer a proud, small and weak one looking to avoid conflicts. There might be another option though. We could have a fairly well equipped force but a defensive military doctrine that made it very hard for government the military to fight elective wars of aggression. In the absence of that though a more powerful military would actually damage our national security interests. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Wilber Posted July 8, 2016 Report Posted July 8, 2016 Throw $billions at our military and you will have a large, proud and strong military force looking for a war. I prefer a proud, small and weak one looking to avoid conflicts. What gives you that idea? We have never been ready for any war we have gone into. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 In any case, I may have missed it, but I've not read you challenge either of those 2 members on their statements suggesting the Canadian Army should be significantly downsized; in one case, relegated to supporting a "strong reserve force". Not quite the equal you're speaking to, yes? . Point of order/clarification (since I assume you're talking about me), I didn't suggest "a significantly downsized army" (that is subjective I guess), but a reorganized army, eliminating duplication, top heaviness and a central focus on fighting World War III in central Europe. Granted I didn't go into as much detail as we've (Army Guy and I anyways) gone in other threads, but as has been discussed in other threads my "reduction" would see our current Army's ORBAT go from: -3x regular force Mechanized Brigade Groups centered around: - 1x Infantry Regiment, comprised of 3x battalions (2x Mechanized & 1x "Light"), with each battalions comprised of 3x rifle companies, 1x combat support company and 1x administration company - 1x Armored Regiment - 1x Artillery Regiment - 1x Combat Engineer Regiment - 1x Service Battalion - 1x Headquarters Minus CSOR/JTF-2, the reserves and various other headquarters, the about is the gist of our current army's combat formations. Of it, I would transition from regular force to reserve 3 of the 9 current infantry battalions (in this case 3 of 6 Mech Battalions) and reduce the other Regiments (Artillery, Engineers etc) in each Brigade by ~1/3, again putting said resources to the reserves. Well doing that, to the three remaining Mech battalions, I would add one additional Mech rifle company, bringing each battalion to a new strength of 4x Mech companies (up from 3x). In addition, the 3x "light" Battalions, the Canadian Special Operations Regiment and the JTF-2 would form the nucleus of our own (Light infantry/Special Forces) "Commando Brigade" (based off the Royal Marines), a light force intended for rescuing Canadians overseas, supporting the Canadian Rangers in the Arctic, international and domestic disaster response, training missions involving partner nations requesting such aide and of course being able (short term) to be used to "kick down a proverbial door", be it UN sponsored "Peacemaking", with NATO or in a coalition with other allies. In short, we would go from 3x regular force Mech Brigades and a Special forces group, to 3x combined regular/reserve force Mech Brigade groups and a "Commando Brigade" comprised of light infantry, special forces, sailors and airmen.......this of course would result in the reduction of several thousand regular force army personal through attrition, all the while, adding: -approx 500 personal to the RCAF, forming a new tactical/medium lift/CSAR helicopter squadron to support the above mentioned "Commando" group, in addition to several hundred more members to increase the strength of the current 427 Special Operations Aviation Squadron -approx ~500-1000 personal to the RCN to support the operation of several LHDs and several forward afloat staging bases , essentially large commercial vessels that could support operations overseas, everything from disaster to rescuing Canadians from a nation under civil unrest. Readers digest, my proposal would essentially shift resources from what we currently have to other priorities that will likely reflect the future requirements of the 21st century, well keeping the majority of the forces largely as is. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 How would they force us to comply? Are they going to force France, Italy, Germany, and Spain to, as well? Perhaps you should ask Trudeau SNR, when US president at the time put it to him gently, to purchases new tanks and fighters....What makes a Prime Minister, who does not believe in the Military , nor NATO, and NORAD, who tried to take all of that under his wing so Canada could make it's own policies....So what was said to change his mind...one could only guess but I bet it was not a nice conversation. France and Germany already spend over 2 % GDP, But i'm sure they too would have to relook at not cashing in all their peace bonds... One would also have to look at the what if Trump becomes president, he has already commented on this matter, and said he would change all that.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Wilber Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 Maybe we should just abolish the military, and use the savings to pay off the debt. Our government has made it clear it has no intention of paying off the debt. All they talk is debt to GDP ratio. Their only concern is their capacity to borrow. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Army Guy Posted July 9, 2016 Author Report Posted July 9, 2016 -3x regular force Mechanized Brigade Groups centered around: - 1x Infantry Regiment, comprised of 3x battalions (2x Mechanized & 1x "Light"), with each battalions comprised of 3x rifle companies, 1x combat support company and 1x administration company - 1x Armored Regiment - 1x Artillery Regiment - 1x Combat Engineer Regiment - 1x Service Battalion - 1x Headquarters Minus CSOR/JTF-2, the reserves and various other headquarters, the about is the gist of our current army's combat formations. I find that often Orbats are often misleading to the general public , as they often assume they are fully equipped and fully manned, leading them to think that our forces are much larger or more potent than they really are.... As Derek has already explained currently we do have 3 Regts of Mech Infantry, PPCLI, RCR, Vandoos, each Regt has 3 Bn,s 2 Mechanized BN,s one Lt BN... the Mechanized BN's are on paper armed with LAV 6.0's, while the LT BN's are Primarily armed with trucks and BV 206... Mechanized Infantry BN: has x 3 rifle companies, one Combat support Company, and One Support or Admin Company. on paper they have roughly 600 pers give or take... Rifle Company: is suppose to be manned around 150 troops each , today a company might be able to field 80 to 100 troops,once taskings, or other training commitments are taken into account some companies are lucky to have 60 combat troops available.... Once our Mission to Afghanistan was finished recruit priorities have changed, resulting in the lower numbers.... Equipment: On paper each mechanized BN is suppose to be equipped with 3 rifle companies worth of LAVs or about 15 each. todays Mechanized BN at most have 2 companies worth, with some only being equipped with one, the rest of the companies are truck mounted or travel by bus.. Hardly a true mechanized BN... DND has addressed this with our government , and at one time the LAV III replacements project was going to solve this issue with the purchase of new LAVS enough to outfit all the BNs as per their TO&E tables, this was down graded in size and to a project that seen our current LAVS "upgraded" by cutting each LAV III in half , disposing of the bottom half, replacing it with the new upgraded LAV 6.0, the top half remained un changed...this is the same Veh the Saudis purchased only theirs are totally new, and have many upgrades to the gun, FCS etc we don't have... Because there is such a massive shortfall in LAV numbers DND also decided to make them up with the purchase of the TAPV project, this project is still pending as manufacture is having issues with the veh, cracked hulls etc. Placing unit logistical tails to grow even bigger as they now have to keep parts and equipment for 2 series of vehs. and it will still not address the shortfalls completely... Combat support Company: This company is nothing more than a shell of its former self, consisting of a Recce plt, Sniper dets, and BN HQ and SIgs. Struck off the TO&E are the other plts that once made the BN self reliant on the battle field. - Armored Recce Plt, - Assault Pnrs ( inf combat engineers) - Armored defense Plt ( x 18 tow under armor M113) - mortar Plt ( x 12 81 mm mortars) This company once numbered over 250 pers... Support Company: although downsized, numbers in around 175, down from 225. Armored Regts: Canada only has one armored regt with tanks, LDSH in Edmonton, (x 3 sqns of tanks, 45 tanks ) along with one tank sqn ( 15 tanks) belonging to the RCD's in Gagetown....the rest are armored recce sqns armed with Coyotes, which are being retired....and replaced with TAPV vehs....the rest of the tanks are in the Armored tank school in Gagetown.... Cut from the Brigade TO&E was each Brigade armored recce sqn, a Brigade level asset that was part of the Tank Regts Tables....as they had turned most of the RCD and all of RBC Regt into strictly recce Regts.... Arty Regts: Once armed with the M-109 Self propelled Arty platforms, now long gone and replaced with a variety of guns such as M777, and 81 mm mortars taken from the Infantry BN's, * note the 105 mm Gait has been replaced and retired due to cracks, now some regts have 105 mm guns that date back to Korea...but not all...All of these have to be towed into battle with trucks.... Also part of the arty corp is the air defense corp, or what we now call General service support Regt....not sure on their exact role they play now, UAV's are based here....Gone is the ADDATS Self propelled Anti air and armor sys, and the twin 35 mm towed AA guns, with Sky guard radar sys... Service Bn. This BN has been gutted to it's core, once a very large organization that could supply a Brigade group in the field for long periods of time...what remains is about a 1/2 of it's self. Gutted because it is a nice to have item when faced with starvation. Made up of 4 companies Supply, Transport, Maintenance, and Admin. Gone are most of Supply capabilities such as G&T Plt, ( general and tech stores), MLBU mobile laundry and bath unit, and the brigades NBCW decon capabilities "re allocated to the nations NBCW special task force team". Most of supplies transport assets have been redistributed due to truck shortages in the forces. replaced with 20 ft sea cans , but no prime movers to move them. Transport company also gutted for the same reasons, Maintenance Company also reduced but is one of the stronger companies , these guys fix everything the brigade breaks in the run of a day.... SO while a brigade might be 7500 pers on paper, it would be lucky to see 5000 of those numbers, which would be reduced even more by fitness levels, medical issues , mental issues, etc etc ..... My point here is not everything is what it seems to be... lets not forget the Army is the governments favorite son, and i'm quit certain that things are a lot worse with the navy and air force..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Smallc Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 (edited) Perhaps you should ask Trudeau SNR, when US president at the time put it to him gently, to purchases new tanks and fighters....What makes a Prime Minister, who does not believe in the Military , nor NATO, and NORAD, who tried to take all of that under his wing so Canada could make it's own policies....So what was said to change his mind...one could only guess but I bet it was not a nice conversation. I'm sure you have proof of this anecdote. France and Germany already spend over 2 % GDP Not the last time I checked. France is at 1.9 and Germany is in 1.1. Germany is not much different than us. Italy also spends 1.1, and Spain, 0.9 - just like Canada. One would also have to look at the what if Trump becomes president, he has already commented on this matter, and said he would change all that.... Trump says a lot of things. Edited July 9, 2016 by Smallc Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 Perhaps you should ask Trudeau SNR, when US president at the time put it to him gently, to purchases new tanks and fighters.... Actually the story you're thinking about involved the West Germans and several other European NATO members that threatened to scupper a trade deal with the PET government over his cuts to European defense.........so we bought Leopard tanks. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted July 9, 2016 Report Posted July 9, 2016 My point here is not everything is what it seems to be... Without a doubt, but you can be certain the countless headquarters and supporting units associated were the combat formations have no staff shortages...... Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted July 10, 2016 Report Posted July 10, 2016 There might be another option though. We could have a fairly well equipped force but a defensive military doctrine that made it very hard for government the military to fight elective wars of aggression. In the absence of that though a more powerful military would actually damage our national security interests. Defensive? Defence from what? Polar bears? If we have a military, its purpose should be offense. Quote
Big Guy Posted July 10, 2016 Report Posted July 10, 2016 The Navy just released the most recent pictures of the new ships that we are considering: New Ships Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
Argus Posted July 10, 2016 Report Posted July 10, 2016 INot the last time I checked. France is at 1.9 and Germany is in 1.1. Germany is not much different than us. Italy also spends 1.1, and Spain, 0.9 - just like Canada. These NATO countries are not paying their fair share... Now that's not something we want getting into the common belief system down south, but it's also true, and will certainly feature in the upcoming election. Trump might be pointing it out but there's no way Clinton is going to argue the point because he's absolutely right. So it's likely Clinton will agree with him and insist she would put more pressure on the slackers like Canada to up their defense spending. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/ Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.